Author Topic: Orbital to offer Orion LAS to others? (Read 10785 times)

docmordrid · « **on:** 02/19/2010 01:45 am »

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/

That would shave a few years off development for a lot of companies, including SpaceX.

robertross · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/19/2010 02:04 am »

Quote from: docmordrid on 02/19/2010 01:45 am

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/

That would shave a few years off development for a lot of companies, including SpaceX.

In which part, providing the LAS, or Orbital supplying the capsule as well?

docmordrid · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/19/2010 02:15 am »

Actually it sounds more like they're not going to make a manned capsule. Why else sell your tech to a competitor?

Harold KSC · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/19/2010 02:18 am »

That was a lazy article, but they've always been poor with Constellation type articles.

Lars_J · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/19/2010 04:15 am »

Interesting... The Orion LAS would of course be extreme overkill for any other capsule, but the know-how and technology could certainly apply to Dragon or Orion-Lite if a deal was made.

neilh · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/19/2010 06:33 am »

Since the Orion LAS is designed to deal with a giant Orion capsule and the possibility of a giant exploding 5-segment SRB first stage, wouldn't it be overkill for the smaller launchers, which would have much smaller capsules and liquid (or at least predominantly liquid) stages? It's also interesting to compare the $200M Orbital got in 2008 ($100M in 2009, ~$60M in 2010) for developing the LAS to the $3.4M Blue Origin's getting this year for TVC tests of their pusher-escape system.

Heck, the Orion LAS by itself is 6176kg, heavier than the system used on Apollo.

Sen · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/19/2010 06:56 am »

Im sure if its strongly suggested it be used the companies might. Just speaking off the cuff without researching it too much. But its likely a solid fuel booster, and its orbital so the componets (ie solid booster part) probably come from atk or somewhere in italy. lots of hands involved a long supply chain to physically build one. I think spacex would rather develop a liquid fueled as they have stated build it in house. Keep the cost down (arguable just stating their apparent bias/business model) as well as be able to modify the desighn without a long process working with subcontractors. Which is how they prefer to do their business. That said, if it works and is affordable or nasa decided they want to use technologies already developed etc etc then maybe. Might have to be redone anyway for the reasons already stated by others in this thread. If orion light gets developed it would be logical for that capsule...with tweaks for mass etc.

Nathan · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/19/2010 06:59 am »

Quote from: neilh on 02/19/2010 06:33 am

Since the Orion LAS is designed to deal with a giant Orion capsule and the possibility of a giant exploding 5-segment SRB first stage, wouldn't it be overkill for the smaller launchers, which would have much smaller capsules and liquid (or at least predominantly liquid) stages? It's also interesting to compare the $200M Orbital got in 2008 ($100M in 2009, ~$60M in 2010) for developing the LAS to the $3.4M Blue Origin's getting this year for TVC tests of their pusher-escape system.

Heck, the Orion LAS by itself is 6176kg, heavier than the system used on Apollo.

The main engine propellants account for only 2500kg of that total though so four tonnes is structure and RCS propellant. If dragon can use it's own rcs then maybe only the lower section of the LAS is required. ?
I don't know anything about LAS design etc but if anyone does I'd be interested in thoughts on that.

Nathan · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/19/2010 07:02 am »

Quote from: neilh on 02/19/2010 06:33 am

Since the Orion LAS is designed to deal with a giant Orion capsule and the possibility of a giant exploding 5-segment SRB first stage, wouldn't it be overkill for the smaller launchers, which would have much smaller capsules and liquid (or at least predominantly liquid) stages? It's also interesting to compare the $200M Orbital got in 2008 ($100M in 2009, ~$60M in 2010) for developing the LAS to the $3.4M Blue Origin's getting this year for TVC tests of their pusher-escape system.

Heck, the Orion LAS by itself is 6176kg, heavier than the system used on Apollo.

The orion LAS main engine propellant weighs 2500kg. The rest is rcs etc.
One wonders if dragon could not use it's own rcs and thus use the main engine part of the LAS only.

I don't actually know much about LAS design though.

Nathan · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/19/2010 07:04 am »

Quote from: robertross on 02/19/2010 02:04 am

Quote from: docmordrid on 02/19/2010 01:45 am
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/18orionlas/

That would shave a few years off development for a lot of companies, including SpaceX.

In which part, providing the LAS, or Orbital supplying the capsule as well?

I do so wish there was a "like" button on this forum!

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/19/2010 12:20 pm »

Well, it makes sense that OSC would want to recoup their investment somehow.

There are two obvious customers: SpaceX, who seem to regard LAS development as the 'long pole' to Crewed Dragon, and Lockheed-Martin if they submit a bid for a Commercial Orion for a Commercial Crew Vehicle competition. I know that the Boeing-Bigelow and Dreamchaser will both have pusher LAS engines, so Orbital can't sell to them.

yg1968 · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/19/2010 04:55 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/19/2010 12:20 pm

I know that the Boeing-Bigelow and Dreamchaser will both have pusher LAS engines, so Orbital can't sell to them.

Out of curiosity, where did you get this information about Boeing and about the Dreamchaser LAS? I haven't seen anything clear on this.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/19/2010 04:59 pm »

There was some talk on this forum about abort modes for HL-20 a while ago. As I recall the HL-20 would use its own propulsion for aborts.

docmordrid · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/19/2010 06:10 pm »

Correct. IIRC SpaceDev was going to use their hybrid rockets. Dunno if this has changed since they were acquired by Sierra Nevada.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #14 on:** 02/19/2010 08:32 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 02/19/2010 04:55 pm

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/19/2010 12:20 pm
I know that the Boeing-Bigelow and Dreamchaser will both have pusher LAS engines, so Orbital can't sell to them.

Out of curiosity, where did you get this information about Boeing and about the Dreamchaser LAS? I haven't seen anything clear on this.

Further to docmordrid's reply, OV-106 stated (in such a way as to imply very strongly that he knew for a fact) that the Boeing-Bigelow spacecraft would have a pusher LAS.

Jim · « **Reply #15 on:** 02/19/2010 08:41 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/19/2010 08:32 pm

Further to docmordrid's reply, OV-106 stated (in such a way as to imply very strongly that he knew for a fact) that the Boeing-Bigelow spacecraft would have a pusher LAS.

That wasn't stated or inferred anywhere.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #16 on:** 02/19/2010 08:46 pm »

OV-106 stated that someone would have a pusher LAS. I don't believe he specified who.

yg1968 · « **Reply #17 on:** 02/20/2010 12:28 am »

Blue Origin has a pusher LAS.

Comga · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/20/2010 04:18 pm »

The hypothetical Lockheed capsule for the Atlas V 401 shown in post 394 of http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.60 is illustrates as having a pusher LAS. (I am unable at the moment to put in a link to the AIAA paper which was posted by Lockheed.) It was said to be both a LAS and OMS and was shown as very small.

But this has little to do with the topic of this discussion: "Will Orbital offer Orion LAS to others?" We all know that the Orion LAS is a very large system with three separate solid motors, abort, steering, and jettison, the latter using very high tech valves, derived from SDI/ Brilliant Pebbles technology IIRC. It is hard to imagine anyone buying the system as is, design ownership issues aside.

As to SpaceX buying it, such a move would go against their pattern to date. One way they claim to control costs is by building a high percentage of their hardwre in house. OSC doesn't build the solid rockets for the Orion LAS. Doesn't ATK? So that would have SpaceX buying an ATK LAS motor purchased and integrated by OSC as an intermediary. Not impossible, but not cheap and not their "style".

docmordrid · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/20/2010 11:05 pm »

You mean this? I also have the PDF it came from.

PDF link.....

Rabidpanda · « **Reply #20 on:** 02/21/2010 06:52 am »

Quote from: docmordrid on 02/20/2010 11:05 pm

You mean this? I also have the PDF it came from.

PDF link.....

The LAS/OMS in their picture looks way too small. Maybe it's just the engine and the propellants are stored in the capsule. The capsule itself looks kind of stubby, not the most aerodynamic thing to have on top of a rocket. I wish they had more info in the PDF, all it seems to have are some concept sketches and remarks on how great Atlas V is for crewed launches.

Jim · « **Reply #21 on:** 02/21/2010 09:53 am »

It was one of the OSP designs.

Comga · « **Reply #22 on:** 02/21/2010 04:52 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 02/21/2010 09:53 am

It was one of the OSP designs.

Do you have a link to more information on that proposed design?

That LAS/OMS does look disproportionately small.

(Yes, docmordrid, that image is from the document I had in mind. I have the PDF somewhere inaccessible at the moment. )

docmordrid · « **Reply #23 on:** 02/21/2010 05:15 pm »

Found this more detailed image in a Defence Talk article from 2003. Cut this out of a pic of 4 OSP proposals. Might clarify things a bit.

Comga · « **Reply #24 on:** 02/21/2010 05:54 pm »

The system in this image is quite different from the one behind the LM capsule.

To the point of this topic, if the units behind two versions of one capsule are so different, the modifications of Orbital's Orion LAS for a completely different spacecraft would be extensive, to day the least.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #25 on:** 02/21/2010 07:27 pm »

IIRC, that crew taxi was one of the options ULA mentioned in their skit at the A-Com hearings. I might be wrong, but the use of the term 'passenger' suggests it is a fully remote/computer-controlled vehicle like Dragon was originally intended to be.

docmordrid · « **Reply #26 on:** 02/21/2010 10:45 pm »

Found another image in my collection. Early and not much, but here it is...

Comga · « **Reply #27 on:** 02/22/2010 02:42 am »

Although it is OT, can anyone speculate on how such a system would work? All those lobes and the very small nozzle? (There even seems to be room for a larger nozzle in the adapter to the second stage.) I have a guess, but it's way out of my field of engineering.

Lars_J · « **Reply #28 on:** 02/22/2010 02:49 am »

That does not look like a LAS... Just a tiny de-orbit module. (Like Mercury)

docmordrid · « **Reply #29 on:** 02/22/2010 03:41 am »

And yet it looks much like what's labeled as an Abort/OMS in Lockmart's PDF. Small, lobed etc.

I could see some lobes being tanks and others thrusters, but I agree the main nozzle looks small. Still, nozzle aside, are those lobes big enough to be tanks and thrusters? How about the core being large enough for an adequate thrust chamber?

IMO the image I cut out of the OSP pic looks more adequate to the task.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #30 on:** 02/22/2010 11:03 am »

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/22/2010 02:49 am

That does not look like a LAS... Just a tiny de-orbit module. (Like Mercury)

A lot depends on the thrust of the motor. If it is high enough thrust (and lsp), then there is no reason why it could not theoretically do both jobs. Would a H2O2 monopropellent be sufficient?

I suspect that the RCS on this vehicle would be in the main module, as with Dragon. The basic desing philosophy appears to be maximum reusibility, unlike the Gemini/Apollo model where a major part of the spacecraft is disposed of before re-entry.

Comga · « **Reply #31 on:** 02/23/2010 03:25 am »

OK Here is my guess with little to back it up:

Could each of the lobes be a separate solid motor, with all eight feeding a single plenum, nozzle, and bell? In the case of an abort, all eight fire, generating maximum thrust. If an abort is not called, they are fired singly or in pairs for orbital insertion and deorbit, with some perhaps discarded unfired after the deobit burn in a nominal mission?

It is not clear how they would keep a lit motor from igniting other motors.

They might have to do something like the adaptive coast of the Taurus II to get a more precise orbit injection with an unstoppable burn of a solid motor charge.

I have no idea how the differing burn rates would affect pressure, thrust, and Isp. Anyone out there with better guesses or some real knowledge? (Jim: Tell me how this is more complex and less reliable.)

And almost on topic, could Orbital build a similar architecture with some of the Orion LAS technology? Imagine using the valve system for the steering component on the abort motor itself. In an abort condition all of the side-facing valves remain closed, maximizing thrust, except for brief steering bursts. In a jettison or orbital insertion condition, most of the valves stay open, minimizing or just greatly reducing the forward thrust.

If the valves fail in the initial shut positions, they would get either an unsteered abort or a really, really fast jettison.

HMXHMX · « **Reply #32 on:** 02/23/2010 04:08 am »

Speculation has its place, but have you all considered that this may just be an artist's sketch with no engineering to back it up? That happens all the time.

Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke...

Comga · « **Reply #33 on:** 02/23/2010 05:15 am »

I did think of that, but it seems to be too specific and odd. They wouldn't write the whole article, complete with a discussion of black zones and abort modes, without a concept for LAS whose performance they could evaluate. It would seem to be some whole concept, and although it doesn't have to be a workable one or the optimal one, these are smart professionals. I view this as a chance to learn what they are thinking by examining their illustrations.

Of course, the basic subject here is speculation. Unless Orbital announces a sale, or someone finds out about a discussion between Orbital and SpaceX or other potential spacecraft vendor, there are no factual answers.